Literature Review of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom

lit Review of Data, In sham shapeation, dumbfound and Wisdom2.5 Why friendship circumspection is so important?Knowledge as a re spring ca determinations huge error for economists, beca physical exertion un ilk the physical commodities, it is the only if resource which increased re rhythms as it is utilise rather than reduced or diminished everywhere time (Clarke, T. 2001). Knowledge may be costly to generate simply on that repoint is sm each cost to diffusion. Massa, S. Testa, S. (2008) believed that the determinants of conquest of addressments, and nationwide economies as a total, is ever practically dependent upon their efficiency in assembling and utilizing fellowship. Accordingly to Malhotra, Y. (2000) noesis has figure out into a identify production factor though the m 1tary accounts ar still leading by conventional factors of production, including buildings and machinery. The idea of friendship aerodynamic to where it is most needed is the critic al point and it should non flow only from the crystalize down, that flow in all ways in an memorial t subjectt, (Davenport, T. Prusak, L. 2000). Davidson, C. Voss, P. (2004), Lin, L. Kwok, L. (2006) claimed that experience is no longer a source of power it is familiarity manduction that counts in the fellowship economy but author like Kakabadse, N. et al., (2003), viewed companionship itself is power. Creation and codification of companionship do non unavoidably lead to performance improvement or value creation. Value is generated only when companionship is allocated all the way finished in an establishment and conjugate where it is needed (Chena, C Huang, J. 2007). It is not sufficient to have smart heap in the governing. Instead, the key is to wee-wee corpses that tap into the association, experiences, and creativity of your staff, your customers, your suppliers, and however your competitors. Knowledge strategy needs to be concerned with the quality of nu rture, not the total and with the time rail liness of information delivery, not its speed. Smart systems atomic number 18 excellent but smart mass be superior. Despres, C. Chauvel, D. (1999) identified that friendship focus occurs on three endsthe diverse(prenominal)ist,the group andthe arrangingal.2.6 Framework for association approachesKnowledge direction is concern to diverse worry fields and it has always been entrenched in the somebody behavior. It is not all about creating an index or register that detains the alone thing that anyone ever knew. Collison, C. Parcell, G. (2004) suggested that it is about maintaining track of those who know the procedure, techniques and fostering the close and engineering science that go forth cash in ones chips them talking. It is challenging to understand the nature of fellowship and the way it is recognised. Also the oversight approaches towards noesis focal point is varied. Knowledge mass be created from re-descr ibing and re-labeling the past cognition, it besides created from connecting nation (the relationships) and connecting technologies (networks). This might be on the tcapable social or stiff good networks. These discussions vibrate with the managerial problem of exploitation com government agencyal performance via rigid or free control systems and this was interpreted in the following exemplar adopted from Armistead, C. Meakins, M. (2002) for describing cardinal approaches to intimacy concern stand on whether it is in an plaqueal or an various(prenominal) context, and whether fellowship worry is imposed or empowered by managerial approaches.Armistead, C. Meakins, M. (2002)Figure No 2.3 Framework for companionship approachesImposition is joininged with bureaucracy, expression and controlled systems and attempts to codify all aspects of companionship. It might expect such lores to be to a greater extent inclined to explicit rather than mum fellowship. In con trast, Empowerment accepted the potential in the social and respective(prenominal) for cognition creation and function, in which the dumb as much as the explicit aspect of fellowship is soak upd. The authors considered that managers are likely to be concerned with companionship at an item-by-item and consider-up aim and with particular approaches to managing cognition. Consequently they proposed a managerial textile which uses the constructs of imposed and empowered as one axis and the individual and the organization as the another(prenominal). Prescribed recommends a official approach to intimacy and its circumspection at anorganizational level. It might see engine room set up widely to detain, store up andguard intimacy. Compliance fashion individual engage in noesis activities through contract andregulation. Resources are distributed via electropositive performance management operationes. Adaptive engages with the on the loose(p) at heart the social cl oth of the organization inthe logic of communities of institutionalise and the self-management of teams. Self-determination supports individuals to perk up state for their part to agreeing in the knowledge creation and manduction bringes.From the above management paradox of how the knowledge is manage at an organizational and individual context. There is another well known model, called SECI or knowledge spiraling model. The model did not only described that how the knowledge is managed but it besides explained the overall knowledge creation mold.2.7 SECI ModelIn 1995, (Nonaka, I. Takeuchi, H. 1995) introduced their SECI model, which stands for Socialization, Externalization, faction and Internalization. The habit of this model is to offer an understanding of how organizations create knowledge and formalize organization does which are mostly tacit in nature. It further provides an understanding of knowledge sharing, its management and application at an organizational l evel. According to Nonaka, I. Takeuchi, H. (1995) knowledge is create from the interaction betwixt tacit and explicit knowledge. These four knowledge revolution processes interconnected by moving from tacit to explicit knowledge as it moves from socialization to internalization then return to socialization to shape a spiral model of knowledge creation. Hiscock, J. (2004) verbalize that the first generation earliest to 1995, completely dependent on technologies in their daily t beseech lots known technocratic, but this is the second generation of knowledge management, where knowledge supervene upon is illustrated as a spiral a thing to be managed and something which asshole be made explicit. As the purpose of this re hunting it is to look at the barricades to knowledge management consequently the only focal point from this model is to observe overall knowledge creation process. Nonaka, I. Takeuchi, H. (1995) discussed that how tacit and explicit knowledge interrelate to successfully create knowledge in an organization via four conversion processes2.7.1 Socialization tacit to tacitSocialization is the process through which tacit knowledge is passed to others it is directly related to the group processes and organizational last. soundless knowledge is lots attained through sharing experiences, observations and the processes that arises without formal discussions and development language for instance grammatical case to face interaction. Interviewing and focus groups techniques are also creating tacit knowledge amongst pile.2.7.2 Externalization tacit to explicitExternalization of tacit knowledge is the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit. As tacit knowledge is embedded in the peoples mind and that is externalize or express by sharing of paradigms, metaphors and concepts through formal discussions. Nonaka, I Takeuchi, H. (1995) declared that we have conceptualized an range of mountains we habitually tend to express it in language. Ex ternalization is developing notions which hasten tacit knowledge to communicate. Redesign of existing information enkindle experience to new knowledge in the shape of written statements. Wakefield, R. (2006) argued that when knowledge is externalized and turn into explicit it is in fact converted back into information or data. Both have values, but this apprisenot be out until the data and information is imputed again to form knowledge that is used for some productive purposes.2.7.3 Combination explicit to explicitCombination is a process of systemizing concept into a knowledge system, at this level explicit knowledge merged with written reports and other strategic documents through formal discussions (i.e. meetings, documents etc.). This process takes gathering pregnant knowledge then mixed baging, editing and distributing it, which allows knowledge sharing within organization. musket ball education and training are also comprise in this persona of knowledge conversion .2.7.4 Internalization explicit to tacitInternalization is a weapon of altering explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. It is achieved through individual twist and goal by doing. in one case the explicit knowledge shared with individuals to internalize what they have experienced and then their understanding works tacit knowledge in the form of shared intellectual models or technological know-how which further become a valuable asset for the organization. For object lesson customer complaint are recorded and then read by other team members.2.8 key components and its related barriers to KnowledgeManagementDuPlessis, M. (2008) point out that knowledge management is a holistic solution integrating mixture of perspectives people, process, technology and enculturation perspectives and every adept one should hold equal entrance. According to Gillingham, H. Roberts, B. (2006), people, process and technology (soft and hard aspects) reveals the most essential features engaged in capturing, disseminating and sharing knowledge. These elements crave to be balanced to guarantee that the complete benefits of knowledge sharing are exploited. Of course, people, process, and technology (PPT) are intertwined and no organizations get very remote benefits without having a basic competency in all. But the tougher challenge in knowledge management is how to built PPT into an organization. Collison, C. Parcell, G. (2004) suggested that involving people who knows, and the behaviors to assume, listen and share, some processes to cast things easier for sharing, validation, distillation, and a familiar, reliable technology infrastructure to facilitate sharing. Knowledge management is all concerning the integration of people, process, technology but strategy and structure too (Armistead, C. Meakins, M. 2002). According to Quinn, F. (2008) the development of knowledge managements exposes many issues that firms claim to have solved completely. The issues for use related to business benefits, people and culture, technology and process. These issues reflect all the main areas of concern in a knowledge environment and rear end be produce the barriers or road block to achieving the corporate success that most of would wish to inhabit.2.8.1 PeopleThe biggest misunderstanding that the Information Technology (IT) leading composed is that the knowledge management is all about technology. Gillingham, H. Robert, B. (2006) corroborate that people are the most central and complex element in knowledge management. It is a people who create and share knowledge, Since, (tacit) knowledge is set aside in the individuals the most essential thing for knowledge management is the system to allow the conceal knowledge within an individual be library paste to others in order for them to share, exploit, and then alter it into (explicit) knowledge within an organization (Yeh, Y. et al., 2006). Knowledge management helps us do what we do better and its connect informa tion and people, and people and people. Call, D. (2005) suggested that people are not being able to gain knowledge in a minutes and hours but they learn over days or weeks and one of challenge is to detained knowledge from what people said and did as part of their everyday job and to build it reachable to rest in an organization. According to Gundry, J. Metes, G. (1996) people behaviors is often manipulated by their beliefs, values, attitudes, and the organization culture. Influencing what people believe should direct to changes in values, attitudes and behavior in which knowledge is shared behavior. Gillingham H. Robert, B. (2006) stated that it is complicated to get people to do things in a assorted way because people stomach simply come in back on defensive routines. A state of leaveingness require from individuals to get people to modify the way that they do things, it is central to manage those who are impulsive to create and share their knowledge (Yeh, Y. et al., 2006) . According to the Abell, A. and Oxbrow, N. (2001) people ask numbers of question in organization towards knowledge management for exercising What is in knowledge for me? How does it make my job easier? What appreciation will I get for sharing my knowledge? Etc. It is important to identify what knowledge people need and what knowledge people already possess and how to link people and knowledge process.In any system where information or knowledge is accessible, there essential be adequate security to mark off that only appropriate people are able to see what knowledge is held and by whom, in that case confidentiality is the barrier to crafting a knowledge sharing culture in the organization (DuPlessis, M. 2008). But from the organizational point of view, one can comprehend that it is in national interest that the particular knowledge stays confidential. In other word the right information and knowledge should distributed to the right people at the right time and right place. For example in defense sectors and utilities provider such as countries like atomic number 16 Africa where they have one and only major energy provider, their key knowledge and information would be exceptionally secret hence it should be strongly managed (Sutton, S. Leech, S. 2002).Employee often does not know what is the concept of knowledge management their perception about knowledge as resources in not clear as capital letter assets resources. In the view of McCann, J. Buckner, M. (2004) people do not include knowledge into their work process to make final products and services and even do not feel responsible for sharing their own knowledge with colleagues. Kols, A. (2004) submitted that people do not even realize that they have knowledge worth sharing. Employees viewed knowledge management as an additional job, processes and formal ravish of converses which is not incorporated into their daily working environment (DuPlessis, M. 2008). other potential factor employed turnov er, where experienced employees careenred, promoted, retired, or fired from the organization, twain their tacit and explicit knowledge may be lost unless the organization makes a concerted swither to assure that it is shared.Knowledge management setup and implementations requires sufficient time which is often claimed constraint. Time can be a difficult area or barrier, where employees are considered on the hourly basis, for example accountants, lawyers, solicitors and engineers. For them, time is wealth and it is hard to modify the view that knowledge management be able to make them work smarter and quicker, even if they do employ some time on it upfront (DuPlessis, M. 2008). When the organization was steady and developing smoothly, it would be feasible for people to take extra time and effort to get involved in such knowledge management activities. Once the circumstances changed, these practices would be easily gone down because they were peripheral to business operations (Lin , L. Kwok, L. 2006).2.8.2 do byArmistead, C. Meakins, M. (2002) declared that knowledge management is a process rather than an asset, and hence to facilitate maximize its value an organization moldiness have to form an environment that facilitates the flow of knowledge. The argument between technology and people is about the ways of managing knowledge processes. Barnes, P. (2007), Probst et al., (2000) categorizes knowledge management in six core processes knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition, knowledge expansion, knowledge sharing or distribution, knowledge exploitation and knowledge preservation. In order to share knowledge, one requires tools or processes Expert locater systems, communities of practice (formal and sluttish), distance learning information-sharing tools, emergent expertise, storytelling, knowledge repositories, conferences/workshops/ seminars, e-learning applications and virtual communities are some of the methods organizations can use to disseminat e knowledge. Abell, A. Oxbrow, N. (2001) believed that people make process work, often through informal steps- how can these be formalized and how to build communities around business processes. Process must learn how to achieve the commitment of people to the learning process and how to integrate knowledge creation and utilization into business process. Processes need technology support- how to integrate business benefits and technology capability, it also require formal and informal confabulation between employees.Lack of communication, non-standardized processes and information systems and not knowing where to get knowledge. Gillingham, H. Roberts, B. (2006) stated that location and distance (geographical, legal, heathen and lingual) to access of vast organization knowledge can be a bottleneck Informal communication outlook as just chitchat or chatty occupation, managers do not see the advantage of (tacit) knowledge process or transfer from one employee to another hence oft en employees are restricted to engage in discussing projects or ideas at meeting places such as set about to water coolers or coffee machines (Webb, S. 1998).However organization confusion over the focus of the initiative often creates barriers to knowledge management information or knowledge management knowledge management or learning organization which should lead human resources (HR) or information technology (IT). However there is danger in attempting to identify and collect everything available. According to Giannetto, K. Wheeler, A. (2000) if too much detail is gathered, it is impossible to distinguish what might be of value to employees and it will become a huge unmanageable, bureaucratic nightmare Organizations focus on collection not connection and attempt to capture all organization knowledge in repositories, often creating electronic bucket in place of physical filing cabinets also misunderstand the leaving between tacit and explicit knowledge and treat it in the same way.2.8.3 TechnologyThe manipulation of technology is significant it is ultimately a facilitator of human knowledge in the organization. Technology or IS does not hold tacit knowledge, as it is held in the human brain (Rock, S. 1998), although it is transfer medium of tacit into explicit knowledge to some extend because tacit knowledge alters with each new experience and technology should be updated frequently. Armistead, C. Meakins, M. (2002) affirmed that information technology can alter speedy search, access and retrieval of information, and can support collaboration and communication between organizational members. In real meaning, it can undoubtedly do a variety of roles to support an organizations knowledge management processes. Technologies and knowledge management are strongly tied, because both assist the circulation of structured knowledge vertically and horizontally in the organization. (Yeh, Y. et al., 2006) argued that technology wreaks following roles in knowledg e management acquiring knowledge demote, store, index, and tie knowledge related digital items search and identify related content and flexibly communicate the content found on the different utilization backgrounds.Knowledge management classifications are in general defined technologies which improve and enable knowledge generation, codification and transfer. Peoples experiences and interpretations that add value, transforms into knowledge by use technologies. Knowledge management (technology) tools for instance e-mail, document systems, groupware, the internet, intranet and exposure conferencing are all knowledge collaboration tools which can be use for gathering, organizing and sharing knowledge in the organizations (Gillingham, H. Roberts, B. 2006).Not everyone is computer literate and that sort of illiteracy become a cause which brake knowledge management processes also people finds that working with complex systems is not easy (DuPlessis, M. 2006). sometimes it is much c hallenging for the organization to get people trained to using the KM tools (technologies) to facilitate knowledge sharing and safekeeping.Holland, J. Johanson, U. 2003) recognized that organization regard towards technological costs sometimes restrain in respect of install knowledge management softwares and hardwares. Perhaps both are very dear(predicate) in terms of getting licenses for every member in a large organization. Since knowledge is an intangible asset, it is to a greater extent complex for organization to exercise return on investment in hard form (cash), consequently step back from any initiative however Collison, C Parcell, G. (2001) believed that knowledge benefits can be defined in qualitative and quantitative measures. another(prenominal) barriers occur when technology is not up to date with the business processes as well as with the improvements in the technological world then knowledge and information might become rapidly old-fashioned and if maintenance and back-ups is not done regularly, knowledge can be vanished in a catastrophe situation, which is not only costly but also irretrievable.The advance caseful of communications for example intranet if organizations only rely on this then it will be a huge barrier to the exchange of tacit knowledge. Davenport, T Prusak, L. (2000) suggest that knowledge sharing events happen when people connect via communities of practice and in person meetings.2.8.4 CultureChen, C. Huang, J. (2007) described organizational culture as shared value, beliefs, and work atmospheres that could have considerable impacts on the behaviors of employees. According to Yeh, Y. et al., (2006) culture is the combination of value, core belief, behavior model, and emblem. Culture is normally reflected in the form of organizations corporate structure, management and leadership style, learning from experience, norms, and practices, hope, rewards and recognition, networks and community of practices etc (DeLong, DW. Fahey, L. 2004, Al-Hawamdeh, S. 2003). Culture can play a role for organizational learning and every organizations culture is an independent entity different than any other organization. Alavi, M. Leidner, D. (2001) suggested that it is significant to comprehend that knowledge management is not as much of technical problem, but it is more of cultural problem. Culture is not only intangible and illusive, but it can also be observed at sextuple levels in an organization. faith and honesty are elements of culture sometime not clearly visible, Davenport, T. Prusak, L. (2000) confirmed that without these elements knowledge management would not function properly between individuals. Employees ask many questions themselves for instance if I share knowledge will others debase it, can I belief the knowledge that others created (Abell, A. Oxbrow, N. 2001).Another familiar barrier point out by Kols, A. (2004) knowledge as a source of power or authority and therefore hoarding it, unifo rmly organizations are naturally unwilling to share their skills and know-how with rivals. Employees possibly will not willing to share their knowledge because they might lose control/power, they spotlight on continued existence in the organization rather than willingness to share knowledge (Clegg, S. Palmer, G. 1996). The following Chinese sayings depicting this philosophy with influences from such widespread beliefs, knowledge sharing becomes more complex.A good mastery of a single skill ensures a lifetime employment (Lin, L. Kwok, L. 2006).Internal divisions are general obstacle. Each department, field office, service delivery site, or project team tends to focus on its own problems, have limited contact with outsiders, and unwitting of what other subdivisions are doing. Davenport, T. Prusak, L. (2000) stated that employee often assumes that the people in top of organizational hierarchy have greater knowledge and expertise and this difference amongst individual may be seen a s a barrier. Employees on different hierarchical or designations frequently struggle to share knowledge between these levels, as they feel they may have much or more knowledge on a particular subject but not consulted or totally ignored because of their position in organization. Furthermore Webb, S. (1998) revealed that managers often try to avoid consult subordinates because they might fear for losing face. If skills are greatly diverse within professional areas and/or within ranks, it might obturate the tools and practice through the knowledge is shared between levels.Organization consists of multiple genders and seeking assistance from same gender whether the person is helpful or not is normal cause and may be a barrier. Bartram, S. (2005) stated that women in managerial position often seen as one of the cultural barrier. Also assorted age makes a differentiation at the point of exchanging knowledge.Webb S. (1998) believed that employees are unwilling to share knowledge if the f uture economic harvesting of organization is unstable and they strive to secure their position by retention of tacit knowledge as power. The overall organization instability may spoil social networks and reduce flow of knowledge from one control to another in an organization (Lesser, E. Prusak, L. 2001). Management emphasis on individual rather than team, disincentive to knowledge sharing, competition between employees, motivational limitations, escape of acknowledging for the supplier of knowledge, sub-standard physical layout of work space, and fewer management commitments could be a constraint for knowledge sharing environment (Chase, R. 1997).2.9 How the barriers of knowledge management can be managed?Knowledge management is a lengthy and iterative process and its related benefits realized over a period of time. There are no rapid fix solutions to counter these barriers. However to overcome these barriers an organizations require to undertake essential approaches and action s. According to Du Plessis, M. (2008) knowledge management barriers directly line up with organizational, national and personnel culture. Top and senior managements can play a significant role for instance by raising the cognizance of knowledge management activities and its benefits into work place (Birkinshaw, J. 2001). At any level of knowledge management it is compulsory to make sure that employees trained on the basis of knowledge management, once the knew the insights of knowledge management they are sufficient able to see how its adds value into their routine jobs and how organization can create social and intangible capital. However if employees ignore or do not understand the notion of knowledge management then they will not be capable to leverage it completely, even though organizations have processed knowledge management plans and systems. Flexibilities between departments could span knowledge sharing boundaries. Employees should not reserve by position in a hierarchy a nd confine by resources.Davenport, T. Prusak, L. (2000) stated that the components of knowledge management people, process and technology must be uniformly supplied in terms of time and money. The most right force in knowledge management is people because they can able to change their environment so trust in people is an queer phenomenon in managing people and their knowledge. Milton, N. (nd) described two other ways to manage knowledge called connect and collect, however these terms are vastly similar to the Nonaka, I. Takeuchi, H. SECI model (see section 2.7). The S mean Socialization and it begins through the connecting people into social networks where they can able to talk, to share dialogues with other people where the other three boxes named Externalization, Combination and Internalization is all about revolving tacit knowledge into explicit into tacit knowledge. For example knowledge is documented, recorded into knowledge system or knowledge repository in an organized w ay thus the others can access it. Organizational culture should abide for mistakes by recognizing and sweet-smelling innovative errors, also there should be no fear of losing position from not knowing the entire thing (Gillingham, H. Robert, B. 2006). In the view of Barnes, P. (2007), decentralize structure gives opportunities to know where the decisive knowledge is located and able to make more accurate decisions. Incentive and reward systems not only influence members to support knowledge management activities but it also encourage their willingness to take part in the creation and sharing knowledge (Yeh, Y. et al., 2006). Lack of trust alters into culture of trust and confidence get by face to face interactions its not only the way of transferring tacit knowledge between individuals but it allows to evaluating the trustworthiness of both the giver and the receiver. Use of technology in knowledge management stipulates user training and members should have skills available other than technical ones such as interpersonal skills. According to the Abell, A. Oxbrow, N. (2001) technologies should not be the number one wood and substitute of social interactions neither should it be a barrier.2.10 Summary all(prenominal) organizations is a knowledge based and they possesses particular knowledge in various forms such as in human capital, structure capital, intellectual capital etc. and the issue of knowledge management is essential because organization lives in uncertain world. The above literature has been identified potential barriers to knowledge management which was categorized into organizational culture, people perceptions, ineffective processes and obsolete technologies. There is no cause to believe that those barriers will not impact on knowledge sharing to a more or fewer extent within an organization and between personnel. However the rationale of this study was not to classify an extensive organizational barrier profile but the principle was barely t o recognize a set of commonly studied barriers in knowledge management which can be apparent in various means across an organization. When organizations managed and implement knowledge in a logical and structure way it can add value to both the employees and organizations effectiveness. The literature fall over also fascinated that knowledge management is a social activity or relies on social models, even though sharing of knowledge can be possible from technologies but recipient and sender of knowledge are still humans. Organizational culture, employees perceptions and their characteristics, sources of knowledge creation and the context in which knowledge is shared are key consideration in knowledge management.